The Democratic administration in Bucks County waited until the final hours to appeal the latest Point Pleasant decision and came in under the wire yesterday when papers were filed with the state's highest court.

The 37-page petition asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear the case contends an Oct. 11 Commonwealth Court order directing the county to resume construction of the water project was improper. It says the order violated separation of judicial and legislative powers and erroneously attributed liability for the project to Bucks County.

According to the document presented by James M. McNamara, county solicitor, "The most troubling aspect of the Commonwealth Court's decision results from the court's failure to recognize that . . . Bucks County's legislative power may not be compelled by judicial decree."

Commonwealth Court's decision in favor of lower court decisions maintaining the county is obliged to finish the project "violates the constitutional separation of powers," McNamara said.

If the decision stands, the county argues, it will be a precedent "supporting future efforts by special interests to utilize tenuous contractual claims to avoid legitimate exercises of legislative power."

Because the contracts between Philadelphia Electric Co., the North Penn and North Wales water authorities and the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority require future legislative action by the county for completion of the project, the court erred in holding that Bucks County's legislative rights cannot be exercised to end the project, according to the document.

If permitted to stand, the decision will undermine the fundamental constitutional concept of separation of powers as well as the statutory right of governmental bodies to determine the scope of the projects undertaken by authorities they have created, McNamara said.

The argument pertains to the NWRA and its standing as a quasi-governmental agency under the auspices of the county.

Because Bucks is not a party to the construction and operation agreement between PE and the NWRA, the solicitor contends, the "courts should not thrust unbargained contractual obligations on strangers to a contract."

PE plans to use water drawn from the Delaware River as a supplemental cooling source for its nuclear power plant in Limerick, Montgomery County. The North Penn and North Wales water authorities have signed on as major domestic water supply customers.

Commonwealth Court recognized in its recent decision that Bucks was not a party to the contract, according to the papers, yet twice it has found Bucks liable for at least some aspect of the agreement's execution based solely on its approval of the contract.

"Nowhere does the Commonwealth Court attempt to explain how this obligation arises," the petition says.

It calls the court's decision a "newly created doctrine of collective responsibility" that is directly contrary to the intent of the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945, which lists the parameters of authority for all types of municipalities.

The papers also raise the issue of whether to allow the North Penn and North Wales water authorities to take over a portion of the project after its completion.

The project includes the pumping station at Point Pleasant, a water treatment plant at Chalfont and a network of pipelines throughout Bucks and Montgomery counties.

Commonwealth Court upheld an earlier ruling under which the two authorities would assume control of the system's operation.

The county contends that lower courts have essentially rewritten a water- sales agreement that expressly provides for Montgomery County to take over construction and application of the system in the event Bucks County and the NWRA fail to pursue it.

"A review of the agreement and Montgomery County's contracts with (North Penn and North Wales) establishes that no one envisioned or intended North Penn or North Wales ever to take over a portion of the project," the petition states.

It argues further that because the portions of the project turned over to the authorities would not produce "one drop of water" for Montgomery County or the authorities, if a turnover is to occur, "it must be a complete turnover and also include the Point Pleasant facilities" not included in the judicial order.

"It would make no sense," Bucks contends, to turn over the transmission lines without the pumping station since "those facilities standing alone would be of little use to anyone."

By decreeing partial ownership of the project to the respective parties, the county argues, the courts have improperly canceled an agreement and "created a vague relationship" among them, "clearly contrary to existing Pennsylvania law on the power of a court to rewrite a document."

Under law, Bucks could appeal the Commonwealth Court decision within 30 days of the Oct. 11 ruling. Since the deadline expired Sunday, and Monday was a holiday, the county had until yesterday to file its appeal.